Family & Corrections Network

Reading Room

CHAPTER VIII

RESEARCH REPORT N0. 46

EXPLORATIONS IN INMATE-FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

Norman Holt
Associate Social Research Analyst
Southern Conservation Center

Donald Miller
Associate Social Research Analyst
Los Angeles Research Unit

Research Division
California Department of Corrections
Sacramento, California
January 1972

CHAPTER VIII. THE INMATE AND HIS FAMILY: SOME CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Any serious look at the end results of correctional programs is likely to be discouraging. Immediately the investigator faces the problem of trying to define "correctional programs," as the term has become so broad as to include almost everything convicted criminals are required to do in the course of their imprisonment. A second difficulty is the virtual absence of any theoretical basis for the programs. After a review of current correctional techniques, Cressey concluded that not only had their effectiveness not been demonstrated but that the techniques were "only vaguely related to any reputable theory of behavior or of criminality."1/ Empey observed that most such programs, rather than being derived from theoretical constructs, are usually based on an "intuitive opportunism," involving a kind of goal-oriented guessing which develops into a strategy of activity.2/

A third area of frustration involves the inability to find empirical evidence showing any significant value for the great majority of current techniques of correctional intervention.3/ Commenting on this lack of demonstrated effectiveness, Ward remarked:

"University investigators should find little comfort in the fact that while treatment evaluation results are not much to take to the legislature, the implications for the sociological and psychological theories underlying these programs are not much to take to their professional meetings. With the investment that all parties -- prison and parole departments, treatment specialists and theoreticians -- have in evaluations of correctional programs, there is no question that what would be helpful to all concerned, including the objects of treatment, would be the report of a prison treatment program that really worked."4/

At this point in our knowledge it seems fair to say that there are few correctional techniques whose proven value is such that their application would represent a significant improvement over doing nothing at all. To compound the difficulty most of these unproven techniques require high staff ratios or in other ways consume large amounts of scarce correctional resources. It is against this bleak backdrop that the implications for corrections of the findings of this study relating to inmate social ties will be discussed.

Do Family Contacts Increase Parole Success?
The central finding of this research is the discovery of a strong and consistently positive relationship between parole success and the maintenance of strong family ties while in prison. The reliability of this finding is substantiated by the results of other research undertakings. The earlier of these efforts was conducted by Lloyd Ohlin in the course of developing a parole success prediction scale for Illinois. Ohlin developed an index of family interest while in prison to capitalize on the belief of many parole agents that parolees with closer family ties tended to do better. Using a sample of releases from 1925-35, he found that 75% of the inmates classified as maintaining "active family interest" while in prison were successful on parole compared to only 34% for those regarded as loners.5/ Glaser used Ohlin's classification technique with a sample of 1956 releases from federal prisons with very similar results. He found that 71% of the "active family interest" group were successful compared to only 50% of the "no contact with relatives" group.6/ In an earlier study of 1940-49 releases from the Pontiac Branch of the Illinois State Penitentiary, which has a reformatory type population, Glaser found a 74% success rate for the "active interest" group and a 43% rate for those parolees without contacts.7/

This study found very similar percentage differences between groups. Only 50% of the "no contact" inmates completed their first year on parole without being arrested, while 70% of those with three visitors were "arrest free" during this period. In addition the "loners" were six times more likely to be returned to prison during the first year (12% returned compared to 2% for those with three or more visitors).

The convergence of these studies should be emphasized. Ohlin's study focused on inmates paroled in Illinois over a ten-year period. Glaser's work replicated Ohlin's findings with releases during one year from federal prisons as well as from a reformatory type population. The same results characterize our study's sample of 1969-70 releases from a minimum security institution in California. The positive relationship between strength of social ties and success on parole has held up for 45 years of releases across very diverse offender populations and in different localities. It is doubtful if there is any other research finding in the field of corrections which can approximate this record.

One of the major problems with the earlier studies, which the authors of this study tried to overcome, was the strong interrelationship among social ties, other important variables, and parole outcome. The unique contributions of this study in this regard was to show the independent contribution of family ties to parole outcome. The importance of family ties held up in an analysis in which six other important factors were considered.

Glaser postulated that the amount of release money was important to parole outcome.8/ We found this to be true only for those with few social ties. Difficulty on parole is somewhat predictable if the inmate has few contacts and less money. On the other hand, strong social ties appear to serve as an alternative material resource. Among those with many visitors the amount of release money assumed no importance.

Among federal prisoners Glaser also found significant differences in parole outcome associated with differences in type of residence. However, similar differences in California largely disappeared when the number of social ties was held constant. There was not much difference in parole outcome among parolees planning different types of residences who received numerous visitors. The relationship didn't disappear entirely, however, since those parolees planning to live with parents or wives still had a slight advantage in parole success. For example, 8% of those who had two or more visitors and who were living alone on parole recidivated compared to 5% of their counterparts with plans to live with their parents or wives.

Similarly, employment prospects among federal prisoners were important to parole outcome, but with the imposition of a control for family contact, job offers were not important for the sample used in the present study. The importance of a job offer appeared to be primarily a function of the strength of the inmate's social ties. In other words, the presence of a job offer was unrelated to parole outcome when the inmate's social ties were taken into account, and the effects of social ties on parole success were independent of a job offer.

An alternative explanation of the findings of this study is that inmates receiving more visitors are less likely to recidivate anyway. In order to test this hypothesis, the authors divided the sample into three levels of predicted parole outcome and compared social ties and parole success within each. The predictive device was the California Base Expectancy Scale, which is based heavily on past criminal involvement. Within all Base Expectancy levels, it was found that those who maintained closer ties did better.

It might be claimed that, while other important variables were taken into account, inmates motivated to maintain strong social ties have some special motivation to succeed on parole. The same qualities which motivated the inmate to maintain frequent family contacts might have caused him to do better on parole. The data in Chapter V seem to invalidate this alternative explanation. If the results in parole outcome were caused by differential motivation, it would be necessary to hypothesize a somewhat generalized motivational difference. In other words, the difference in motivation ought to show up in other areas besides visiting and parole outcome. However, this was not the case. Those who maintained frequent family contacts received about as many disciplinary reports, had no better work records, were no more likely to participate in treatment programs, and did about the same in group counseling. In summary, all the evidence suggests that there is a strong independent, positive relationship between maintaining frequent family contacts while in prison and success on parole.

This evidence suggests that the inmate's family should be viewed as the prime treatment agent and family contacts as a major correctional technique. This approach has numerous advantages not the least of which is that it is free. It doesn't require the specially trained staff or costly staff augmentations so common to most treatment approaches.

A second major advantage is the built-in inmate motivation. Most treatment techniques, even if they work, have limited value because the inmates most in need are also the least motivated for treatment. The few who volunteer are often the same ones who would succeed without the program. The desire for outside contacts, by contrast, is a central part of the inmate's existence. The data in Chapter IV clearly show that when adequate opportunity is provided for contacts the inmate's social ties need not erode away, the contacts of our sample were about as frequent after several years of incarceration as during the first six months. The one important exception to this was that a significant number of wives stopped visiting during the second year. It is necessary to emphasize, however, that this study was done at a correctional complex which is located within easy commuting distance from where most of the inmates' families live and which has very liberal arrangements for visiting. It seems apparent that the further visitors have to travel and the more difficult the procedures for visiting, the more likely are the visitors to reduce contacts as the sentence is served.

Can Correctional Systems Help?
The next question is whether or not correctional systems can do anything to capitalize on the family's potential as a treatment agent. Chapter VII examined two experimental programs which aimed in this direction, the Family Visiting and the Temporary Release Programs. Both efforts are successful by almost any standard. Both enjoyed almost unanimous support from the inmate body. Almost all inmates hoped to participate, and those who couldn't were not resentful. Neither presented serious administrative problems. In addition, a follow-up study found that the participants in either program did better on parole than non-participants. Sixty percent of the participants experienced no difficulty during the first year of parole compared to only 42% of the non-participants. The number of participants was small, and the results must be interpreted with caution. However, the findings held up under the application of numerous control variables.

A final question about the temporary releases is whether they seriously threaten the public safety. Currently, thousands of inmates in California are being released each year on temporary leaves and experience has shown that they are involved in no more difficulty than would normally be expected during the first few days on parole.

Some Recommendations
There are two areas in which changes might increase correctional effectiveness through promoting strong family ties. First, there are several ways in which special programs could become more effective. More extensive use should be made of temporary releases. Their potential seems almost unlimited. Even with their rapidly expanding use in California, no limits have yet been found on who can benefit or the number of times benefit can be derived. The use of temporary releases as pre-release preparation should be extended to include the entire time of incarceration. Home leaves beginning a few months after reception would go a long way toward promoting strong family ties. Home visit privileges should be granted to a few non-violent, married prisoners in low risk categories on an experimental basis and slowly be extended to other groups.

The Family Visiting Program should be reserved strictly for those inmates who cannot make use of temporary releases. These would probably include such cases as chronic parole absconders, perpetrators of very violent crimes such as murder, or inmates who need to work out marital problems in a more structured setting than is provided by the home. Since common-law marriages are increasing in prevalence, those of some duration should be recognized in both programs.

Family counseling should be utilized more with each institution required to have at least one person certified as a family counselor who would be designated as a coordinator. This person would be available as a co-leader for family groups as well as a consultant to other staff. This individual’s availability should be made known to visitors so as to encourage their consultation with him.

The second area concerns routine institutional procedures. Every effort must be made to place the inmate in the institution closest to his home in order to facilitate family contacts. This research has shown the high cost in terms of parole failure of hindering important social ties. Correctional systems can no longer afford the expense of incarcerating inmates in areas so remote from their home communities as to make visiting virtually impossible. Proximity to the home community should be the first consideration in making assignments to institutions.

All restrictions on visitors and mail should be closely scrutinized with the objective of eliminating all regulations which are not necessary to promoting the absolute basic security of the institution. No restriction should be allowed to remain whose only reason is the limit in space. Space must be found. If some new correctional technique were invented tomorrow whose effectiveness were equal to family contacts, there would be a rush to find space for implementation even if it meant using the warden's office. Wherever possible visitors should be allowed to bring a lunch and share it with the inmate. This avoids terminating the visit for the meal and also provides for visiting in a setting focused on a central family ritual. There are undoubtedly many other ways in which family contacts could be promoted.

1/ Cressey, D.R., "The Nature and Effectiveness of Correctional Techniques," Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol: 23, No. 4, Autumn 1958.

2/ Empey, L. T., "A Strategy of Search," paper presented at the planning session of the Pacific Sociological Association on the Technical and Ethical Problems Involved in Evaluating Action Programs, Salt Lake City, April 1965.

3/ Robison, J. and G. Smith, "The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 17, No. 1, January 1971.

4/ Ward, D.A., "Evaluation of Correctional Treatment: Some Implications of Negative Findings," paper read at the First National Symposium on Law Enforcement Science and Technology, Chicago, Illinois, March 1967.

5/ Ohlin, L.E., The Stability and Validity of Parole Experience Tables, (Ph.D. dissertation) University of Chicago, 1954, cited in Glaser, D., The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System, Bobbs-Merrill, Inc., New York, 1964, p. 366.

6/ Glaser, op. cit., p. 366.

7/ ibid.

8/ Glaser, op. cit., p. 316.

- end of document -